Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-23 Info Packetr t CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET - ....�_ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 23, 2014 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP2 Agenda OCTOBER 27 JOINT MEETING MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Information from City Manager regarding Iowa Board of Regents Meeting: University Agreements / Relationships with Local Public Entities Memo (PILOTs) IP4 Memo from City Attorney: Confirmation of Court / Linn Finalists IP5 National League of Cities information submitted by Council Member Botchway: Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream IP6 Civil Service Examination: Electronics Technician IP7 Civil Service Examination: Landfill Operator IP8 Civil Service Examination: Mass Transit Operator DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Telecommunications Commission: September 22 r !*—'.' City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 i►� Subject to change October 23, 2014 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location Monday, October 27, 2014 4:30 PM Joint Meeting /Work Session North Liberty Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Thursday, November 6, 2014 5:00 PM Spec. Work Session (Court /Linn RFP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 10, 2015 8AM -5PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (Department Presentations) Monday, January 12, 2015 1:00- 7:OOPM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (CIP Presentations) Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:00 PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 26, 2015 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session TBA Tuesday, Feburary 3, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting M IP2 Joint Meeting Johnson County Board of Supervisors - Iowa City Community School District - City of Iowa City - City of Coralville - City of North Liberty - Other Johnson County Municipalities and School Districts Monday, October 27, 2014 North Liberty City Hall 1 Quail Creek Circle Reception 4:00 p.m. Meeting 4:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Welcome and Introductions 3. Discussion /update of the following: A. Liberty High School Water /Sewer Extensions and development /road plans (North Liberty) B. Highway 965 Project Update (North Liberty) C. School developments (North Liberty) D. Courthouse Annex Bond Referendum (Johnson County) E. Legislative issues and priorities for 2015 (Johnson County) F. Opportunities for collaboration and communication (Johnson County) G. ICCSD Letter to Municipalities: Inclusionary Zoning (ICCSD) H. Community IDs (ICCSD) I. Emerald Ash Borer plans and strategies (Iowa City) J. General entity updates K. Next meeting date and time L. Other 4. Public comment 5. Adjournment Entity in parenthesis requested the agenda item From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:14 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Fwd: University Agreements /Relationships with Local Public Entities Memo Attachments: 1014_P &F02.pdf; ATT00001.htm Please include the email and PDF in the info packet. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: 'Donley, Robert [BOARD]" <bdonley_@iastate.edu> Date: October 13, 2014 at 11:48:58 AM CDT To: "tom- markusgiowa- cit�org" <tom- markusgiowa- city .or g> Cc: "bobd@meardonlaw.com" <bobd@meardonlaw.com> Subject: FW: University Agreements/Relationships with Local Public Entities Memo Hey Tom: I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Board agenda for the Oct 22 -23 meeting in Iowa City will include this item on PILOTs (policy on page 5). This will be released in the public docket and available on our website tomorrow afternoon. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Regards, Bob Robert Donley Executive Director Board of Regents, State of Iowa Phone: 515 -281 -6426 Fax: 515- 281 -6420 BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA OCTOBER 22 -23, 2014 Contact: Joan Rack! / Ann McCarthy UNIVERSITY AGREEMENTS / RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITIES Actions Requested: Receive the report on University agreements / relationships with local public entities and consider recommending to the Board, for first reading, a proposed policy on Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). Executive Summary: The most recent Facilities Governance report (February 2014) noted that Iowa's public universities continue to expand cooperation and sharing arrangements with the public entities (cities, counties, school districts, and conservation boards, etc.) in the municipalities in which they are located. This document includes an overview of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) agreements, including for the Iowa River Landing Ambulatory Care Facility, Phase I between the Board (on behalf of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics) and the City of Coralville. This report also provides a review of the agreements and relationships that exist among the three Regent universities and local public entities. As requested at the June 2014 Committee meeting, this agenda item also includes a proposed Board policy on Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). University /Local Public Entity Interdependence Maintaining and strengthening existing partnerships and developing new partnerships between the Regent universities and the municipalities in which they are located are to the mutual advantages of all entities. The universities contribute to the economy, civic life and infrastructure of the municipalities in which they are located by attracting human capital and technological innovation while boosting the skills of the workforce in addition to providing community services. The city and its neighborhoods support a university's ability to function well by offering the public services and social and cultural amenities that help to keep people and jobs in the area. (Source: Kemp p. 151) The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics provides health care for an entire region and the state — health care that significantly exceeds what would be found in other similarly sized cities. The universities are often among the most significant economic generators in the cities in which they are located for a variety of reasons, including: • They are major employers, providing jobs in a wide range of skill and pay levels; • They are often among a city's major draws for visitors, whose spending supports local jobs and generates local tax revenues; • University capital projects support impressive levels of construction and associated jobs; • Expenditures by the universities and its students and staff have a multiplier effect throughout the city's economy. (Source: Econsult Solutions, page 6) Iowa Historical Context and Statutory Provisions In 1929, in response to a request for an opinion, the Attorney General stated that the State Board of Education (The Board of Regents was created in 1955 as the successor to the State Board of Education.) did not have the legal right, under the existing statutes to pay the City of BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA PAGE 2 Iowa City any amount for fire protection regardless of the fund source. "The University property and buildings being located within the city limits of Iowa City, it is incumbent upon the city to furnish fire protection." (Source: Fletcher, J). In 1931 (44th General Assembly), the Code of Iowa was amended to include a specific provision providing the Board with the power to enter into contracts with the governing body of any city, town, or other municipal corporation for the protection from fire of any property located in that entity or in territory upon terms that may be agreed upon. (Current Iowa Code §262.33) Under §427.1 of the Iowa Code, property of the State of Iowa, which includes the universities and special schools, is exempt from taxation and has been since the first General Assembly (1851). In 1984, a provision was added to Iowa Code §364.19, which permits a city council or county board of supervisors to enter into a contract with an entity whose property is totally or partially exempt from taxation to provide specified services including but not limited to police protection, fire protection, street maintenance and waste collection. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Experts have not always defined Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) in exactly the same way. For purposes of this paper, they are defined as payments negotiated voluntarily by officials of a tax - exempt entity and officials of the community where it is located as a substitute for property taxes. They do not include payments made under the fire protection agreements specifically provided by Iowa Code §262.33. PILOTs have been around for a number of years. According to the literature, Harvard became the first academic institution to pay a PILOT to a local government - in 1929. (Source: Kemp, page 36) A review of the literature indicates that the greatest majority of PILOT activity is in the Northeast. Experts cite a number of reasons for this including that the Northeast is substantially more reliant on property tax as a revenue source for funding local governments than other parts of the country. In addition, the Northeast has a larger nonprofit sector than other regions and since localities tend to copy successful practices from surrounding jurisdictions, "the greater prominence of PILOTs in the Northeast could lead even more localities to pursue these payments." (Source: Langley, Kenyon and Bailin, page 2) In April 2010, the Board of Regents approved a PILOT Agreement with the City of Coralville for the Iowa River Landing Ambulatory Care Clinic Facility. The agreement states that notwithstanding that the property is exempt from taxation pursuant to Iowa Code §427.1, it provides a mechanism for UIHC to pay the City of Coralville for police, fire and other services to the property and for the construction and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, storm water drainage and other improvements and facilities benefiting the Ambulatory Care Facility (ACF). (Service agreements were not already in place for these functions.) Payment was to be in the amount of $1 million for the first year of the ACF operation with the amount to be adjusted annually based on changes in the tax rate. The FY 2014 payment to the City of Coralville was $1,013,011. BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA PAGE 3 Reaent Universitv Agreements / Relationships with Local Public Entities The Regent universities, due to health, welfare and safety demands, often enter into agreements with local public entities for basic services including fire prevention, law enforcement, emergency response, animal control, electrical power, water, sewer, and landfill services. With sizable, highly populated campuses, research facilities and critical expertise, academic institutions are also important partners in homeland security efforts. As dollar- conscious community stewards, academic institutions often enter into sharing agreements or joint facility leases to maximize the use of municipal facilities such as parking structures, bus maintenance facilities, municipal airports, parks, and sports complexes. Likewise, local governments directly and indirectly receive property tax dollars when a university leases space for health and dental clinics, student housing, and other services. In FY 2014, the University of Iowa paid directly $2.1 million in property taxes on leased space in total to the cities of North Liberty, Coralville and Iowa City. (In addition to this amount, universities indirectly pay property taxes as they are included in the rental rates when the landlord is responsible for the taxes.) Included in the $2.1 million directly paid by the University of Iowa is more than $120,000 paid by medical and dental clinics. It is the Board Office staffs understanding that clinics owned by hospitals in the greater Iowa City area are also on the tax rolls. While no property taxes are paid on farmland owned by Iowa State University, the Board Office understands that they are paid on farmland owned by nonprofit organizations affiliated with the University. It is further understood that the taxes are passed through to the University on the parcels which it rents from the affiliated organizations. Table 1 (Attachment B, pages 6 — 11) includes a detailed listing of the agreements Regent universities have with local public entities. The table has been divided into three categories: Safety, Health and Welfare Service Agreements, including fees for services with Local Governments; Homeland Security Agreements; and Community Collaboration Agreements. Specific agreements include those for emergency response and rescue, joint law enforcement activities, and joint communications networks for public safety services. Community collaboration agreements include, among others, the lease of property to the City of Ames for the City Aquatic Center and Intermodal Site, and UNI's joint use of recreational fields and sports complexes with the City of Cedar Falls. The listings do not include grant agreements with local entities nor do they include agreements with the Iowa Department of Transportation for institutional road maintenance and improvements. BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 PAGE 4 While many of the agreements provide for each party to compensate its own personnel, the following table summarizes major FY 2014 expenditures by the universities to local public entities: Service / Function Fire Protection Sewer, Water, Landfill, Campus Power Purchases From Local Municipalities Tuition and Transportation Payments for School Children Living in University Housing Property Taxes Paid Directly by Universities as Tenants Payment in Lieu of Taxes — Iowa River Landing Parking Agreement & Easement — City of Coralville Proposed Policy on Payments in Lieu of Taxes FY2014 Expenditures $ 3,965,429 10,112,789 473,664 2,132,309 1,013,011 2,157,012 While there are many agreements between the Regent universities and local public entities which necessitate the payment of fees, on occasion there may be a need for a PILOT agreement. To ensure that any PILOT is negotiated in the best interest of the appropriate university and the Board, the attached policy (Attachment A) is proposed for first reading. Adoption of the policy would ensure that Board expectations are established for the universities and local public entities with whom they would be negotiating. H ABF\2014 /oct \10141 TEM PU02wh itepaper.doc BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA ATTACHMENT A PAGE 5 PROPOSED POLICY ON PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOTs) 9.02G Payments in Lieu of Taxes Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) are defined as payments negotiated voluntarily by officials of a tax - exempt entity and officials of the community where it is located as a substitute for property taxes. They do not include payments made under service agreements specifically provided by Iowa Code. Prior to beginning any negotiations with a political subdivsion on a PILOT, the institution shall notify the Executive Director of its intent to negotiate such an agreement. Agreements resulting in payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) between institutions under the control of the Board of Regents and a political subdivision shall be approved by the Board. The request for approval shall include a detailed explanation of the need for the PILOT, the manner in which it was calculated, and concurrence from the applicable public entity assessor(s) as to the assessment calculation for establishing the amount of the PILOT. The negotiated PILOT shall include a sunset / termination date and shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the PILOT is dispersed to the applicable taxing entities (county, city, school district, etc.). BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA ATTACHMENT B PAGE 6 Table 1 University Agreements with Public Entities Safety, Health and Welfare Service Agreements, including fees for services with Local Governments ISU City of Ames ISU City of Boone ISU City of Ames Fire Dept. and Mary Greeley Medical Center ISU County of Story, City of Ames ISU Counties of Story and Boone, Cities of Ames Boone, Huxley and Nevada ISU County of Story, City of Ames ISU City of Ames Fire protection Fire protection Emergency response and rescue, emergency medical services Joint law enforcement activities - County of Story, City of Ames, Iowa State University Combined law enforcement activities for controlled substances Joint communications network for public safety services Water supply for campus 1,589,417 Billed $25foreach hour 524,480 Amount Paid by University Institution Entity Service Provided University(FY2014) SUI City of Iowa City Fire protection $ 1,761,342 SUI City of Coralville Fire protection 31,679 SUI City of Iowa City Downtown patrol assistance 200,000 SUI City of Coralville Sewer & waterfees 236,168 SUI City of Iowa City Sewer &waterfees 2,170,000 Sul City of Iowa City Animal Control Service 4,300 SUI City of Iowa City Landfill fees 134,000 ISU City of Ames ISU City of Boone ISU City of Ames Fire Dept. and Mary Greeley Medical Center ISU County of Story, City of Ames ISU Counties of Story and Boone, Cities of Ames Boone, Huxley and Nevada ISU County of Story, City of Ames ISU City of Ames Fire protection Fire protection Emergency response and rescue, emergency medical services Joint law enforcement activities - County of Story, City of Ames, Iowa State University Combined law enforcement activities for controlled substances Joint communications network for public safety services Water supply for campus 1,589,417 Billed $25foreach hour 524,480 BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 7 Amount Paid by University Institution Entity Service Provided University (FY2014) ISU City of Ames Sewage treatment for campus 695,128 ISU City of Ames Campus power purchases, 2,999,124 electrical transmission services, and other services related to the procurement of wholesale electricity ISU Metro Waste Authority Power Plant ash transportation 683 ,235 and disposal ISU City of Ames Animal Shelter Animal Control Services UNI City of Cedar Fal is Fire Protection Agreement 582,991 UNI City of Cedar Falls law enforcement Each party compensates its own personnel UNI Cities, Counties Tri- County Drug Task Force - UNI City of Cedar Falls Utilities Sewer, water, natural gas, 3,316,652 electricity UNI City of Cedar Falls landfill and transfer station 37,237 BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 8 Institution Entity Service Provided Amount Paid ISU Story County Public Provide Lied Recreation /Athletic Reasonable expenses will Health /Homeward Center and State Gym to serve as be reimbursed local dispensingsite forthe Strategic National Stockpile in the event of a large -scale communicable disease outbreak or bioterrorism event ISU Mary Greeley Medical Provide Lied Hall, Beyer Hall, Reasonable expenses will Center State Gym, etc. to serve as be reimbursed alternate care facility in the event of a catastrophic incident causing mass casualty that overwhelms the provider's ability to care on site ISU Iowa Department of Public Promote coordination of - Health, Bureau of radiation protection activities and Radiological Health (IDPH) to assure timely investigations of all potentially hazardous situations resulting from radioactive materials ISU Iowa Homeland Security Provide a radiological emergency $127,089 to ISU and Emergency response team and State of Iowa Environmental Health and Management Department Trusted Agent Safety ISU Story County Multi- Plan will be used to help guide Jurisdictional Hazard and coordinate mitigation Mitigation Plan activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future p i�Li4x uh �4'����� P __r"#am'—+f.. E.a ��i if i'��I��76' PI�IyhiJT I�iIII�I� I'i�'I�) ,��h01n i,i °Ih• "� . -�: iiOB __ rya .0 it �uLL tt u41 i'8�i� ... ��w., ;. w 7 -. UNI Cedar Falls Comm. School Evacuation or parent reunification - District site for District students BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA ATTACHMENT B PAGE 9 Community Collaboration Institution Enti Purpose of Agreement ISU City Of Ames - Aquatic Ctr Lease for 50 years of land for Ames Aquatic Center at 13th Street ISU Ames Airport- Flight Services ISU City Of Ames- Ice Arena ISU City Of Ames - Intermodal Site ISU City of Ames ISU Cyride (City Of Ames) 9 I s " -I- . , _. — $3,000 @ year Agreement for Flight Services, 30 day termination - since Jan. 1, 1964 30 years from opening date of Ames Ice Rink & Arena (June 3, 1999) Lease property to City of Ames for Intermodal Facility ISU provides smart card to be used for city and campus meters Cy -Ride Bus Maintenance & Storage Facility for 99 years beginning July 21, 1982 Annual Payment or Other Consideration 3,000 20,000 ISU receives 10•� of account balance less $500 retainage fee starting 8/15/2016 No costs UNI Waterloo -Cedar Falls Symphony Orchestra - Office & 6,300 Symphony Orchestra shared space (5 years w/ 1 optional 5 -year extension BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA In'stitution`s Enti SUI Iowa City School District PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 10 School children living in UI owned housing 129,654 SUI Iowa City Public Library Maintain Children's Library for UI Students in Teaching Curriculum 35,000 SUI City of Coralville Payment in Lieu of Taxes -Iowa River Landing 1,013,011 SUI City of Coralville Parking Agreement &Easement 2,157,012 SUI Taxes paid directly by University City of North Liberty as tenant 46,596 SUI Taxes paid directly by University City of Coralville as tenant 825,492 SUI Taxes paid directly by University City of Iowa City as tenant 1,260,221 ISU City Of Ames Continuous Agreement for ISU - Uniform Directional Signage on City of Ames right -of -way ISU City of Ames Lease Moore Park space for - Veenker Maintenance Building (u nti 13/31/2062) ISU City of Ames Rental of Stuart Smith Park by City $1 per year of Ames (until 3/1/2015) ISU City of Ames Lease property of Railroad Park to $1 per year City of Ames (u nti 13/1/2015) ISU City of Ames Lease property of McDonald $1 per year Woods to City of Ames (unti 1 3/1/2015) ISU City of Ames Lease property of Brookside Park $1 per year to City of Ames (until 3/1/2015) ISU Ames Community School Tuition payments for students in 210,522 District university housing BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA Institution Enti ISU Ames Community School District UNI City of Waterloo PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 11 Purpose of Agreement/ Transportation payment for students in university housing Rental of business property located at 8005ycamore Street, Waterloo, Iowa for UNI -CUE (10 years w/2 optional 5year extensions (currently in first 5- yearextension) FY 2014 Payment or Other Consideration 133,488 $72,421 perannum since lease signed in 2001 UNI City of Cedar Falls Golf Course Use 3,500 BOARD OF REGENTS PROPERTY AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE 2 STATE OF IOWA ATTACHMENT C PAGE 12 REFERENCES Code of Iowa, referenced sections. Econsult Solutions, Inc. The City of Philadelphia and its Higher Eds: Shared Goals, Shared Missions, Shared Results. (2013, October 17). Philadelphia. Retrieved from: http: / /Pgrophilly org /wp- content/uploads / 2013 /10 /PGRO- REPORT - 2013- 10- 17.pdf Fletcher, J. Iowa Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General Opinions. (1929, October 29). Retrieved from Westlaw Next. WL62733: Thomson Reuters. Kemp, R. L. editor. (2013) Town and Gown Relations A Handbook of Best Practices. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. Langley, A., Kenyon, D., and Bailin, P. Payments in Lieu of Taxes by Nonprofits: Which Nonprofits Make PILOTs and Which Localities Receive Them. (2012, September). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper. Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP12AL1. Retrieved from: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2143 Payments -in- Lieu -of- Taxes -by- Nonprofits ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Brody, E., Marquez, Toran, K. The Charitable Property -Tax Exemption and PILOTs. (2012, August 29) Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, Urban — Brookings Tax Policy Center. Retrieved from: hftp://www.urban.org/publications/412640.htmi City of Boston. Mayor's PILOT Task Force Final Report & Recommendations. (2010, December 17). Retrieved from: http: / /www.cityofboston.gov /assessing /PlLOT.asp Cordes, J. The Nonprofit Property Tax Exemption: Benefits, Who Pays, and How Much. (2012, May 12). Washington, D.C. George Washington University Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy and Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/taxandcharities/upload/panel-l-cordes.pd f Kenyon, D. and Langley, A. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests. (2010). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, ISBN 978 -1- 55844 - 216 -0, Policy Focus Report/Code PF028. http: / /www lincolninst .edu /subcenters /significant- features- property- tax/upload/ sources /ContentPages/ documents /PI LOTs %20PFR %20final.pdf Knapp, K. (2014, April 24). Princeton University and Town Announce New Payment in Lieu of Taxes Deal. Planet Princeton. Retrieved from http: / /www.planetprinceton.com. Rooney, J. Town -Gown: A New Meaning for a New Economy. The Boston Foundation. Retrieved from: http: / /www compact orq/ resources / future -of- campus- engagement/town- gown -a- new- meaning- for -a- new - economy /4261 / October 17, 2014 State of Iowa Board of Regents Attn: Robert Donley, Executive Director 11260 Aurora Avenue Urbandale, IA 50322 Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Regents: r MAP— CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org On behalf of the City of Iowa City, I would like to express my appreciation for your consideration of a formal policy regarding Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements. This is important policy that will govern future agreements which have profound financial impacts on the State, municipalities and the citizens of Iowa. I would also like to thank Executive Director Robert Donley for sharing the staff report and proposed policy with me and for providing Iowa City an opportunity to share our comments. As mentioned in the staff report, partnerships between the Board of Regents and the municipalities in which they are located can provide significant mutual advantages to both parties. Such partnerships can foster greater efficiencies and ultimately better serve the public while maximizing the financial stewardship of public dollars. This is particularly true when a university can utilize available public services and facilities that would otherwise be more costly to procure from the private sector or initiate as a government agency. The benefits to the municipality are well- stated in the staff report. In fact, it is our belief that the economic impact of a university in a community is so significant that any compensation to a municipality beyond the cost of services provided should rarely, if ever, be necessary. In considering the proposed PILOT policy, I urge the Board to give consideration to two important points; types of agreements covered by the policy, and consistency among all types of agreements. Types of agreements covered by the policy The proposed policy is specific to PILOT agreements and excludes the vast majority of agreements that exist between the Board and municipalities. According to previously received correspondence from Board counsel (see attached), there are only two existing PILOT agreements involving the Board, both with the City of Coralville. The numerous other voluntary agreements and payments of services rendered, as detailed in the staff report, would not fall subject to this policy. Although these voluntary agreements may be formalized through various different legal mechanisms they accomplish the same goal of defining appropriate responsibilities and compensation for both parties. For example, a parking agreement similar to the existing agreement between the Board and the City of Coralville would not fall subject to this policy. Nor would existing agreements with Iowa City for fire protection service, animal control services, or the recently terminated public library service agreement. All of these agreements seemingly aim to define appropriate compensation for services rendered, and while they may be achieved through different legal mechanisms, we believe they should be covered under the same broad policy guidelines. If the Board wishes to keep the policy focused on PILOT agreements exclusively, then it should consider explicit language describing the circumstances under which such an agreement is appropriate. The policy should clearly detail why a PILOT is being sought in lieu of a service based agreement or payment (e.g. fire protection agreement, utility fee payments, etc.). It is currently unclear to communities when a October 17, 2014 Page 2 PILOT agreement should be considered appropriate as opposed to other mechanisms. Consistencv among all types of agreements The current Board Policy Manual recognizes the importance of consistency and equity between institutions and throughout the procurement and capital planning processes. This value should be extended into the proposed policy and be considered when evaluating all arrangements between the Board and municipalities. A review of how a newly proposed agreement compares with similar existing agreements should be required as part of the Board review and approval process. The inconsistency that Iowa City perceives in approaches to agreements with municipalities was the primary source of our concerns that were conveyed to the Board earlier this year. Specifically, we raised concerns with what we perceive as a vastly different approach the Board has recently taken with the City of Coralville compared to its long history of practice with Iowa City and other communities. A few of those concerns are reiterated below: • One example is the parking agreement with the City of Coralville, whereby the Board authorized payments for land acquisition and the full cost of construction for a multi -level parking facility that is owned by the City and that provides UIHC limited access while simultaneously serving private needs of nearby businesses. We view this approach as a significant departure from the arrangement in Iowa City where the City has paid for the construction of parking facilities around the downtown and campus and charged the university the same monthly permit fee for access that it charges the general public. • The use of a PILOT agreement for the UIHC clinic building in Iowa River Landing provides the city compensation that to our knowledge does not correlate to services provided. The payments do not appear to be based on the municipal tax rate and were seemingly not calculated on a service provision basis. Again, we feel this differs from the approach the Board has historically taken with other communities, where the cost of services define compensation levels (e.g. fire, water, sewer, animal services, landfill, etc.). Further, the Board is voluntarily paying funds in perpetuity that are calculated on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) rate encompassing all taxing jurisdictions. Voluntarily contributing to a municipality based on a TIF rate for some State facilities while not doing so with other facilities creates inconsistencies that impact the larger economic environment in the region. We applaud the draft policy's language that includes a requirement for a sunset date and payment to all taxing jurisdictions, unless specifically prohibited by law. • Finally, we believe there should be consistency in defining the types of university operations that pay taxes or pursue PILOT arrangements. The UIHC clinics that are paying an annual PILOT never provided such compensation prior to their relocation to Iowa River Landing. A policy articulating under what circumstances clinics pay taxes or PILOTS to a community would bring great clarity to this issue. Currently, clinics on the main hospital campus or the removed sports medicine clinic, for example, do not pay taxes or PILOTs. However, the experience with the clinic operation in Iowa River Landing illustrates that the same operations make such payments in other geographic settings. To be clear, Iowa City's position is not to seek additional compensation from the Board or University of Iowa. Iowa City recognizes we are incredibly fortunate to be the home of the University of Iowa. The State's investments in our community have a profound impact on our local economy and we feel the current arrangements for payments of services are based on sound reason and are fair to both parties. October 17, 2014 Page 3 However, we do feel that consistency is extremely important when the Board is looking at these types of agreements. Compensating one community beyond the cost of services provided while not doing so with other communities has significant economic implications for those communities. Included with this letter are suggested edits to the policy that reflect the above - mentioned comments. These edits are suggestions that we feel will strengthen the policy and offer greater clarity to the public. It is our hope the Board will discuss the intent of these suggestions and consider amending the policy in a manner that achieves the intent. In closing, I would again like to thank the board for taking up this important issue and for considering these comments. I would also like to acknowledge the University of Iowa staff and the Board staff for their ongoing efforts to partner with our community. We are fortunate to have a strong working relationship with both groups and look forward to collaborating further in the years ahead. Respectfully, Thomas M. Markus City Manager October 17, 2014 Page 4 PROPOSED POLICY ON PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOTS) AND SIMILAR VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS WITH MUNCIPALITIES 9.02G Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Similar Agreements with Municipalities Payments in lieu of taxes ( PILOTs) and similar agreements with muncipalities are defined as payments negotiated voluntarily by officials of a tax - exempt entity and officials of the community where it is located as a substitute for an appropriate share of property taxes or as compensation for services provided. Prior to beginning any negotiations with a political subdivsion on a PILOT or similar agreement, the institution shall notify the Executive Director of its intent to negotiate such an agreement. Voluntary agreements resulting in payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) or payments for services between institutions under the control of the Board of Regents and a political subdivision shall be approved by the Board. The request for approval shall include a detailed explanation of the need for the agreement WET, the manner in which it was calculated, a statement comparing the terms of the agreement to similar agreements with other municipalities, and concurrence from the applicable public entity assessor(s) or service provider(s) as to the assessment calculation for establishing the amount of the paymentP -LOT. If applicable the request shall also detail why a PILOT agreement is being sought in lieu of an agreement to compensate for actual services provided. The negotiated Agreement°, shall include a sunset / termination date and shall ensure, to the eAeRt PeFFA ted unless specifically prohibited by law, that the payment WEBT is dispersed to the applicable taxing entities (county, city, school district, etc.). approved calculation methodology. From: Tom Markus To: Simon Andrew subject FW: PILOT Agreements (Inquiry #96) Date: Friday, April 11, 201411:40:01 AM Attachments: Johnson County Pavments.doa Research Park PILOT.PDF IRL PILOT.PDF Original of what I sent you. ---- ....... _ .... _ ...... ...._..._ .... ............ .... ... .._..._---._-......__....._ ... _ ... _..._...._..._._... _ .... ... _ ... _. ..._.._._.._.- ......._......... _. Prom: Claeys, Aimee K [BOARD] [mallto:akclay @iastate.edu] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 11 :11 AM To: Tom Markus Cc: Evans, Thomas A [BOARD]; Brunson, Marcia R [BOARD]; Rack!, Joan [BOARD] Subject: PILOT Agreements (Inquiry #96) Mr. Marcus: I am writing in response to your April 1, 2014 request for information regarding PILOT agreements at the Regent institutions. In response to your first question, the Board of Regents does not have a specific written policy addressing PILOT agreements. You have also requested copies of all PILOT agreements currently in place at each of the Regent institutions. The response for each institution is as follows: 0 University of Iowa: The University of Iowa provided copies of two PILOT agreements and a summary of payments made in support of Johnson County municipalities. it is my understanding that you have already been provided this information, although I am including the documents again for your reference. O Iowa State University: Iowa State University has not entered into any PILOT agreements with the City of Ames or any of the surrounding communities. Iowa Code Chapter 262.33 permits the Board of Regents to enter into agreements for the provision of fire protection services with communities in which a Regent institution is located. Iowa State University currently has an agreement with the City of Ames that results in payments amounting to approximately 25% of the city fire budget. Iowa State University also enters into contractual agreements where payments for water, sewer, and solid waste disposal are made based upon volume or usage. Iowa State University has mutual aid agreements with the City of Ames and Story County addressing areas including law enforcement, disaster planning and response, and emergency management. These mutual aid agreements do not involve the payment or exchange of funds. O The University of Northern Iowa: The University of Northern Iowa has not entered into any PILOT Agreements with the City of Cedar Falls or any of the surrounding communities. D IBSSS /ISD: Neither of the Regent governed special schools have entered into a PILOT Agreement with their respective communities. In summary, the Board of Regents currently has two PILOT agreements in effect. Both of those agreements are associated with the University of Iowa. A copy of each is attached for your convenience. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact the Board office. Aimee Claeys Associate'Counsel Board of Regents, State of Iowa 515.281.6456 From: Tom Markus [mailto :Tom- Markus(r:)iowa- citv.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:34 PM - To: Brunson, Marcia R [BOARD] Cc: Simon Andrew Subject: Inquiry #96 (14) Website Query The City of Iowa City is currently reviewing our PILOT agreement with the University of Iowa. We have become aware of the PILOT agreement between the City of Coralville and the U of I Hospitals and Clinics at Iowa River Landing and have a question regarding Board of Regent Policy regarding PILOT agreements. Does the Board of Regents have written policy on PILOTs? Is seems that there should be consistent agreements between the Regent's Institutions and the communities in which they have property. Please provide copies of all of the PILOT agreements that the Board of Regents has in place with all of the Regent's institutions across the State of Iowa. Thank you for your efforts in responding to this inquiry. Thomas M. Markus City Manager <Johnson County Payments.docx> <Research Park PILOT.PDF> <IRL PILOT.PDF> r 1 0-23-14 CITY OF IOWA CITY IP4 M EMORANDUM Date: October 21, 2014 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Confirmation of Court/Linn Finalists As you know, the above matter was scheduled for your work session discussion on October 7, 2014 but was deferred when late that day the Council received a letter from one of the proposers, Prairie Sun Building Services, LLC, and a letter from its attorney claiming that the process the City had followed for selecting finalists was illegal. The matter was deferred in order to allow me time to evaluate the claim. I have completed my review and have concluded that the process was legal. You are free to proceed with your discussion. You should continue to refer any questions regarding Prairie Sun's allegations to me. Cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Jeff Davidson, Economic Development Administrator NATIONAL LEAGUE of CITIES Q0O 1 10-23-14 From Council Member Bothchway IP5 Helping City Leaders Build better Communities Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Additional Recommendations 25 Introduction 5 Conclusion 29 Economic Activity 7 About This Publication 31 Public Space 11 Appendix 33 Public Health 17 References 35 Public Safety 21 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Executive Summary Mobile food vending generates approximately $650 million in revenue annually.' The industry is pro- jected to account for approximately $2.7 billion in food revenue over the next five years, but unfortu- nately, most cities are legally ill- equipped to harness this expansion. Many city ordinances were written decades ago, with a different type of mobile food supplier in mind, like ice cream trucks, hot dog carts, sidewalk peddlers, and similar operators. Modern mobile vending is a substantial departure from the vending typically assumed in outdated local regulations. Vendors utilize large vehicles packed with high -tech cooking equipment and sanitation devices to provide sophisticated, safe food usually pre- pared to order. Increasingly, city leaders are recognizing that food trucks are here to stay. They also recognize that there is no "one size fits all" prescription for how to most effectively incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a community. With the intent of helping city leaders with this task, this guide examines the follow- ing questions: What policy options do local governments have to regulate food trucks? What is the best way to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a city, taking into account the preferences of all stakeholders? Thirteen cities of varying size and geographic location were analyzed for this study. Information on vending regulations within each of these cities was collected and analyzed, and supplemented with semi - structured interviews with city staff and food truck vendors. Based on recurring themes and commonalities, regulations are grouped into four policy areas: • Economic activity: this policy area provides insight into aspects of food truck regulation that could potentially enhance economic development, and looks at specific processes that can be barriers to market entry. Two areas of regulation that impact economic activity - streamlining and permit costs — are examined, with recommendations provided for each. • Public space: mobile vending takes place on both public and private property, but public property presents a unique set of challenges. With the rapid expansion of food trucks, there is increased demand for limited space, which increases the likelihood of conflicting interests and encroaches upon the ability of stakeholders to maximize the advantages that public space can offer. Time constraints, proximity rules, and geographic limitations related to density are exam- ined here, with recommendations provided for each. • Public health: this is one of the most basic concerns regarding mobile vending. All stakeholders realize the need for comprehensive regulations around sanitation and food safety. These issues should be addressed within a regulatory framework that is cost - efficient, thorough, and results in a streamlined process for all stakeholders. • Public safety: public safety is a key reason why many cities began regulating food trucks. Regu- lations examined here include private property, vending near schools, and pedestrian safety, with recommendations provided for each. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life All of the recommendations in this guide include regulatory best practices that are currently in place in the selected cities. These best practices provide a balance of the concerns and interests of the four stakeholder groups identified in this report: (1) mobile vendors (this term is used interchangeably with `food truck' throughout the guide) and food truck/industry associations, (2) restaurants and restaurant associations, (3) the community, and (4) city government. In addition, five overall recommendations for cities looking to update their regulations for mobile vending are also included: 1. Hold Town Hall Forums and Private Meetings with Core Stakeholders. 2. Encourage Dialogue and the Building of Relationships Among Competing Stakeholders. 3. Implement Pilot Programs to Determine What Regulations to Adopt. 4. Use Targeted Practices as a Way to Address Underserved Areas of the City. 5. Identify Private Vacant Lou and Create Partnerships for Mobile Vendors to Gather and Vend in the Same Location. The recommendations included here are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate different cir- cumstances, but logical enough to provide useful guidance to local leaders interested in integrating food trucks into city life for the benefit of both their residents and existing businesses. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Introduction Mobile vending has grown considerably in recent years, generating approximately $650 million in revenue annually.' The rapid expansion of mobile vending, or food trucks, is attributed to residents' desire for quality, value, and speed; an appreciation for fresh, local food; and a preference for small and sustainable business. As such, mobile vending is also commonly used as a means to expand eco- nomic opportunity, and enrich communities by improving access to goods and produce not otherwise available through area merchants. The recent recession has also made food trucks an appealing option for hopeful restaurateurs, as they are an easier and more cost - friendly alternative to opening a brick and mortar restaurant. Many entrepreneurs have capitalized on the mobile vending industry, creating opportunities for self - sufficiency and upward mobility' The mobile vending industry is on pace to quadruple its revenue stream over the next five years, but unfortunately, most cities are legally ill - equipped to harness this expansion. Many city ordinances were written decades ago, with a different type of mobile food supplier in mind, like ice cream trucks, hot dog carts, sidewalk peddlers, and similar operators. Modern mobile vending is a substantial departure from the vending typically assumed in outdated local regulations. Vendors utilize large vehicles packed with high -tech cooking equipment and sanita- tion devices to provide sophisticated, safe food usually prepared to order. Food trucks also take up a significant amount of space, require more safety and health oversight, cater to a different customer than the aforementioned types of mobile vendors, and have a more challenging relationship with brick and mortar restaurants and other vendors. Advocates of stricter regulations generally assert that mobile vending congests sidewalks and streets, are unsanitary, and diminish urban quality of life. Regulations that currently impede mobile vending operations in U.S. cities commonly include public property bans, restricted zones, proximity bans, and duration restrictions. Supporters tend to argue that food trucks provide affordable, high quality food, rejuvenate public space, and fairly compete with size and open -air limitations. City officials have to bal- ance these interests by regulating food and traffic safety without impeding the creativity and innovation of this popular market, but because the industry is so new, there are few examples of the best ways to amend existing provisions or adopt new laws. The purpose of this guide is to offer best practices and recommendations to city leaders about how they can most effectively take advantage of the benefits of food trucks, while balancing the need to regulate growth and account for the concerns of key stakeholders: food trucks, restaurants, residents, and city government. It includes an analysis of food truck policies and regulations, specifically as they relate to four policy areas: • Economic activity • Public space • Public health • Public safety Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life The guide also includes recommendations on mobile vending policy and regulatory devel- opment for cities of all sizes. Using this guide, local leaders will be able to better understand the policy options local governments have for regulating food trucks, and determine the best way to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a city while taking into account the preferences of all stakeholders. Selection of Cities This guide analyzes mobile vending regulations across 13 cities, based on population density, presence of local food truck industry, and avail- ability of mobile vending regulations. Figure 1 shows the cities that are included in the guide. Very large cities like New York City and San Fran- cisco were not included on the basis that conclu- sions drawn from analyzing their regtilations would not be generalizable to most other cities. Figure l: Selection of cities Cities (population density) Stakeholders and Stakeholder Values Stakeholders are identified as: 0) mobile vendors (this term is used interchangeably with food trucks here) and food truck/ industry associations, (2) restaurants and restaurant associa- tions, (3) the community at large, and (4) city government. For food truck vendors, it is assumed they would prefer an approach of looser regulations, clear, narrowly tailored laws, and streamlined procedures. For restaurants, it is assumed they favor stricter regulations that limit competition from food truck vendors. Although values are likely to vary among different community groups, it is assumed that — in general — com- munity members hold quality of life concerns, including fear of negative spillovers (congestion, noise, pollution, etc.) as primary concerns, but also harbor a strong desire for community vibrancy. At the same time, community members generally pre- fer more food options to fewer. For city government, balancing the interests of stakeholders is a key priority, but so is a desire for economic vibrancy and revitalization, administrative ease, effective enforcement through regulatory clarity, and options that are budget friendly and cost - effective. LOW POPULATION DENSITY Durham, NC New Orleans, LA Indianapolis, IN Atlanta, GA Austin, TX MODERATE POPULATION DENSITY Cincinnati, OH Denver, CO Las Vegas, NV Portland, OR St. Louis, MO HIGH POPULATION DENSITY Oakland, CA Washington, DC Boston, MA Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Economic Activity This policy area provides insight into aspects of food truck regulation that could potentially enhance economic development, and specific processes that can be barriers to market entry. This section cov- ers two topics that impact economic activity - streamlining and cost of permits for food trucks - and explores how these issues impact the various stakeholder groups. Streamlining Regulations that dictate how centralized the mobile vending permitting process is can greatly impact mobile vendors' level of access to a city's economic activity, as they determine how easy or difficult it is to gain permits and licenses. Stakeholder Concems For food trucks, one of the key objectives is to earn revenue. For brick and mortar restaurants, their goal is the same, and the level of competition food trucks create or are perceived to create can be of concern. For the community and city, creating opportunities for economic development is a key priority because it raises tax revenue, vibrancy, and creates a level of attractiveness for business and residents as well as for the city as a whole. Having a more centralized process for permitting generally allows vendors greater ease in entering the mobile vending arena by reducing the number of city departments they must interact with and receive 7 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life approval from. Centralizing the process also reduces the number of intra- department communications. A streamlined process benefits both the mobile vendors and city staff directly, as it diminishes the amount of work for each. Although to be fair, it increases the level of work for whichever department is tasked with overseeing mobile vending permitting process. For the community, a centralized process is in their best interest as it helps to create more efficiency, a greater potential for economic development and ultimately, raise more revenue for the city. Regulatory Trends The majority of the cities included here do not have a centralized permitting process in place; they use multiple city departments to permit and license various aspects of the mobile vending business. For instance, mobile vendors must apply for and receive a health permit that inspects the sanitation and food safety of a mobile vending vehicle, a traditional business license, and at times a zoning license and a safety permit. Although the number of permits and departments involved may vary, there is a trend of three to five departments and three to five permits that are typically involved in the permitting process for mobile vendors. Three cities use three departments, four use four or more. Only three cities have centralized the process into one city department for all city permits. Although these cities have centralized the part of the permitting process they control, there is still a need for a county health permit. Recommendation Making the permitting process more streamlined has positive impacts on both mobile vendors and city staff. Austin and Cincinnati's streamlined permitting processes can be used as models by other cities looking to implement a more centralized mobile vending permitting process. Austin's comprehensive set of requirements can be found on the city's official government website, and contains everything the vendor needs, including: • Mobile Food Vendor Permit form, including the cost of the permit, • Checklist of additional permit requirements for mobile vendors (with enact descriptions of what is expected and who to contact if there are any questions), • Mobile Vending Unit Physical Inspection Checklist (includes 14 requirements ranging from a current license plate to the specifications of the sinks), • List of mobile food vendor responsibilities, including the signature of the certified food man- ager /food handier, the responsibilities of the central preparation facility (the commissary), and the restroom facility agreement. a Austin's webpage is clear and concise. It has detachable forms and blank spots for the necessary sig- natures, with instructions regarding who to contact to obtain those signatures, specifics about the actual schematics of the truck components required for food preparation and handling safety, and perhaps best of all, nowhere does it suggest the reader refer to a subsection of some code or statute not included in the document. As of January 2013, the Cincinnati Department of Health is solely responsible for the city's permitting process, application process, and payments associated with the city's mobile food vending.' This change was an effort to streamline the permitting process and give food truck owners a one -stop shop for all their licensing needs. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Cost of Permitting The actual cost of permitting plays a role in would -be mobile vendors' decision - making process about whether or not to start a business. One of the most basic barriers to entry for many potential entrepre- neurs is start -up costs, which include permitting fees. Stakeholder Concerns This issue impacts all stakeholder groups. On the vendor side, high permitting costs can serve as a bar- rier to entry. On the city government and community side, it can mean either an increase in revenue (from the actual permit) or a decrease in revenue (if cost deters some vendors from applying for a permit[s]). For mobile vendors, their self - interest is to keep the costs of permitting low so that there is an ease of entry into the market. For brick and mortar restaurants that believe mobile vendors are their competition, their interests lie in keeping the costs high enough to keep the number of mobile vendors low. City staff want to keep costs high enough to raise revenue, but low enough to keep the amount of mobile vendors growing. For the community, their interests are much the same as city staff - to find the balance between raising costs enough to maximize fees while not increasing them to the extent that they become a deterrent for mobile vendors. Regulatory Trends For the cities included in this guide, the cost of permitting fees ranged from $110 - $1,500 annually. Although the amount of permits required and the cost for each vary depending on the city, the majority of cities fall within either the $150 -$400 (five cities) or $1,000+ range (five cities). Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Recommendation Permit fees should be high enough to generate revenue that off -sets at least some of the costs produced by the presence of food trucks, but not so high that they discourage potential business owners from entering the market. The actual amount is contextually determined, as budgets and administrative expenses vary depending on the city. Below are examples of permitting costs in three cities: • Durham: $75 for a yearly permit (not including health permit costs). • New Orleans: Annual mobile vending permit fee - $305.25, Occupational license - $150.00, Mayoralty permit - $100.25, Sales tax deposit - $50.00, and Identification card - $5.00, total- ing $610.50. • St. Lotus: $500 mobile vending permit fee to the Director of Streets, a $200 licensing fee (and $20 for each employee) to the License Collector, and $130 -$310 (depending on type of food served) for a health permit to the Director of Health. 10 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Public Space Mobile vending takes place on both public and private property, but public property presents a unique set of challenges. Flexible access can lead to over - utilization, which in turn can produce unwanted con- gestion, pollution, and conflicts between different stakeholders trying to use the space at the same time.' With the rapid expansion of the food truck scene, there is increased demand for limited space, which increases the likelihood of unwanted externalities and encroaches upon the ability of other stakeholders to maximize the advantages that public space can offer. In most cases, cities are tasked with managing this property, which includes balancing the needs of all interested parties, diminishing negative exter- nalities, and otherwise preserving the integrity of the space. They are also trying to find appropriate ways to address the higher demand. This section looks at three issues related to public space: time constraints, proximity rules, and geo- graphic limitations related to density. A variety of approaches are recommended for dealing with these issues that balance stakeholder needs and take into account context and other practicalities. Time Constraints One set of regulations that impacts the use of public space for mobile vendors is how much time food trucks are allowed to park and vend in one location. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Stakeholder Concerns Shorter time limits translate to less time for vendors to sell in one spot, which favors competing stake- holders like restaurants, since less time means less competition. Time limitations have both advantages and disadvantages for members of the public - less time means fewer choices for consumers but it also means less congestion and more parking options. For the city, the issue is also a mixed bag. Longer time limits mean vendors are easier to track down, since they are in fewer spots throughout the day. At the same time, longer time limits have the potential to reduce patronage at area restaurants. Moderate time limits, such as four to five hours, are often be the preferred approach for cities, since they usually produce the most balanced results (from a stakeholder perspective). Regulatory Trends Most of the cities included in this guide favor moderate or less restrictive parking durations. Five cities have no time limits, while three currently have durations of 45 minutes or less. The rest have provisions of four or five hours. It is worth noting that cities with more restrictive limits often have lax enforce- ment of these regulations. Recommendations Time limits of four hours or longer are recommended. Vendors need approximately one hour to set -up and pack -up once they are done with selling. As a result, anything less than four hours leaves vendors with only one to two hours of actual vending time. Moreover, it is more difficult for city staff to track food trucks for safety or health purposes when they are in several locations throughout the day. How- ever, an unlimited approach may not be feasible in denser regions, where restaurants and other estab- lished businesses, pedestrian traffic, and congestion are more significant factors. This four hour or more time limit is included in regulatory amendments and council suggestions of various cities, including Oakland and Durham. Oakland has a five hour time limit. Originally, the city had a two hour limit for one location. This left little time to actually sell food before having to move again. Vendors complained about the restric- tion, and were successful in getting it changed to five hours. Originally, Durham had a regulation on the books that required mobile vendors to move 60 feet every 15 minutes. The police did not enforce this provision because the number of trucks was not large enough to create much conflict with other stakeholders. As the number of trucks started to increase in 2010, push back began, particularly among restaurants that insisted the police enforce the 15- minute rule. This prompted the city to consider amending the rules to more effectively address modern vending. The Town Hall meetings on the topic were well attended, not only by key stakeholders but also by members of the public. Durham is a town with strong public support for small businesses, and regulations that would make vending easier were favored. In late 2012, the n ales were amended, and included a repeal of the 15- minute provision. No additional time constraints were adopted, and as a result, food trucks can vend in one location for an unlimited amount of time.' Unlike Durham and Oakland, Atlanta's provision of 30 minutes in no more than two locations per day has not been successfully challenged. Since the 2013 NCAA Final Four basketball game, vending on public property is completely prohibited. Before this, vending in public space was very limited, based on history that dates back to the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and the more recent contracting 12 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life out to a private company the responsibility of mobile vendor management.' Virtually all mobile vend- ing takes place on private property, where the 30- minute rule does not apply. Proximity Restrictions This refers to regulations that designate a certain amount of distance that must be maintained between food trucks and other establishments, people, or infrastructure. This section is primarily concerned with the distance restrictions between food trucks and restaurants that impact the use of public space. The limits that concern distance from pedestrians or infrastructure are addressed in other parts of this guide. The cities included here have adopted a variety of proximity requirements. Stakeholder Concerns Creater distance requirements favor restaurants and other established businesses, and are a mixed bag for residents for the same reasons discussed under time constraints. Larger proximity n ales disadvantage mobile vendors because it reduces the number of places to sell, particularly where clusters of restaurants exist, which are often denser areas with more pedestrian traffic. Many cities prefer a moderate approach in regards to proximity restrictions, since such regulations usually balance competing stakeholder needs most effectively. Unlike parking, there are no tracking advantages related to distance requirements, but such regulations do impact where vendors conduct their business, which means the city still has to deal with congestion and other spillover concerns, particularly in denser regions. Regulatory Trends Similar to time constraints, the cities included here have largely moderate or lenient proximity restric- tions. Six or seven have either no restrictions or relatively short distances, and four of the cities occupy the middle ground, with 150 -200 foot requirements. Only one, New Orleans, has a restriction of 600 feet. New Orleans has a proposal to shorten the distance to 50 feet, but there has been resistance to this proposal from some city council members and the Louisiana Restaurant Association.10 Recommendations Proximity restrictions should be no more than 200 feet at the high end. Density issues may call for a tiered structure, or for abandoning proximity altogether. One of the problems with adopting an explicit distance rule is that a "one size fits all" approach ignores context. Three hundred feet may make sense in less dense areas of a city, but such a distance is impractical in very dense neighborhoods. A city right - of -way, with multiple restaurants on both sides of the street where the distance between each side may be less than 300 feet, makes the area entirely off limits to mobile vending. As such, cities may want to loosen or abandon proximity rules in dense neighborhoods with a great deal of commercial and residential activity. A tiered model, where the distance requirements are shortened for denser neighbor- hoods and widened for others is also an option. As the food truck scene has expanded within the last few years in St. Louis, conflicts between restau- rants and food trucks have surfaced. In order to quell the rising tension, the St. Louis Department of Streets enacted a 200 foot rule." Durham has adopted a 50 foot nile.'Z 13 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Geographic Limitations Associated with Density Another set of regulations relate to whether vending is permitted in particular segments of public space. Like proximity restrictions, these provisions concern access to fixed locations. Stakeholder Concems Like the above issues, the more restrictive provisions advantage established businesses like restaurants, while working against the interests of food trucks. Constraints on the number of places open for selling tend to be more prevalent in denser areas of cites due to the much greater number of players utiliz- ing the space at the same time. These are usually core downtowns where a large number and variety of established businesses and residences are located in close proximity to each other within a relatively limited area. Again, for cities, moderate approaches are generally the best at balancing stakeholder inter- ests. Like parking durations, tracking issues come up here as well. Limiting vending to certain locations makes it easier for cities to find vendors, but might hinder economic growth and opportunity. Regulatory Trends Of the cities included here, most currently embrace a patchwork approach, wherein vending is lim- ited to certain zones, districts, parking spaces, or limits on operation in the Central Business District (CBD). Three have lenient provisions, where few public spaces are off limits, while another three are on the more restrictive side, with outright bans on public space or CBD vending. 14 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Recommendations The greater the density of the area, the greater the case for more restrictions, but an outright ban on all mobile vending is not suggested unless the circumstances are exceptional. For a city like Durham, heavy -handed zoning constraints make little sense, as the interests of other stakeholders are only mod- estly compromised compared to denser areas, there are fewer negative spillover threats, city residents are given more choice without substantively higher safety concerns, and vendors are given more flexibility to choose where to operate. As a result, street right -of -ways and core downtown parks are open for vending." In denser cities, the compromises that other stakeholders must make and the risk of negative externalities are increased, suggesting a more moderate regulatory framework should be implemented that requires all parties to relinquish some freedoms without entirely excluding them from the space. One option is the approach taken by Denver, where only the densest section of downtown is off limits to food trucks. Vendors are barred from selling in a section of the southwestern corner of downtown, which is roughly seven by nine blocks. Vendors must also maintain a 300 foot distance from all public parks, unless a special event is taking place, and then they must obtain permission from the city to participate. Another approach is a lottery or first -come, first -serve system that allows a restricted number of park- ing spaces or sections of right -of -way to be set aside for mobile vending. Las Vegas currently has a pilot program that adopts a version of this (three spaces are being set aside downtown for food trucks only)." Washington, DC is also in the process of establishing a lottery system to increase efficiency and safety, and to balance the competing needs of residents. There could also be higher permit or parking fees associated with more heavily trafficked areas. Areas where vending is allowed must be clearly delineated and easy to decipher. Several cities have regulations that make it difficult to easily discern permitted regions from unpermitted ones. Regula- tions that clearly define permitted areas are needed. Distinctions between public and private regulations should also be clear and transparent. A map that explicitly labels the areas where vendors are allowed to operate would be a helpful tool for all stakeholders. If the political climate or density issues make it difficult to relax restrictions on public space, cities could consider making private space in less dense areas easier for vendors to access. Atlanta has a unique his- tory that has produced provisions that greatly restrict vending on public property, and most recently, an outright ban by the Mayor Kasim Reed. To alleviate the impact of this restriction on mobile vend- ing, Councilmember Kwanza Hall and others have worked to make vending on private property easier. A provision that originally required food trucks to maintain a distance of 1,500 feet from restaurants when at least two mobile vendors are selling on private property was amended to shorten the distance to 200 feet." Trucks have adapted to the ban on public property by moving into private space, and this has kept mobile vending alive in Atlanta. 15 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Public Health One of the most intrinsic and logical concerns regarding food trucks, and one that has been a basic consideration since their inception, is public health. All stakeholders realize the need to address sanitation and food safety. The role of health departments and commissaries should be continually reevaluated to address these concerns within a regulatory framework that is cost- efficient, thorough but not onerous, and results in a streamlined process with outcomes that provide for the wellbeing of all stakeholders. Sanitation Sanitation refers to food trucks' proper cleaning of preparation utensils and disposal of garbage, wastewater (gray water) and remnants of grease traps. Unlike the variety of procedural approaches taken by cities within the sphere of public space, the guidelines adopted for sanitation tend to be similar across cities. Atlanta's n ales provide a typical example of the sanitation provisions that exist in most cities. Mobile food units must have a trashcan that is at least 30 gallons, and it must be emptied at the commissary. Two sinks are required - a three - compartment equipment sink (for washing dishes, etc.) and another sink for washing hands. A wastewater tank that has a 15 percent larger capacity than the potable water tank is also required. To prevent contamination, the connections for each must be distinguishable, and the wastewater tank must be lower than the potable tank. " Atlanta is also typical of many cities in that the health code is state law. As such, cities are unable to craft law; they can only enforce provisions established at the state level. Recommendation Cities looking to adopt sanitation regulations for mobile vendors should adhere to the standard require- ments in cities with an already established food truck industry. These regulations can be found on almost any city government website; Austin has particularly clear processes." Since many cities are unable to enact their own sanitation laws, they may want to articulate their need and concerns to the state legislature when appropriate. Food Safety Not surprisingly, the specifics of food safety do not vary that much from city to city. The guidelines for the cities profiled in this guide are common sense and fairly straightforward. For example, in Atlanta, mobile vendors are mandated to have a "Certified Food Safety Manager" (CFSM). The CFSM could be the owner or an operator; whoever is selected must complete a food safety- training program and pass a "professionally validated" CFSM exam. The mobile unit must always have a designated Person in Charge (PIC). This will be the CFSM when present. When absent, 17 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life the CFSM must designate someone else as the PIC. During Health Authority inspections, the PIC may be asked to demonstrate their "knowledge of foodborne disease prevention," for example. The Food Code lists a variety of ways this can be shown, such as demonstrating knowledge of how to properly handle food, among other things." Recommendation State laws often require mobile vendors to adhere to the same food safety regulations that are applied to brick and mortar restaurants. This is an effective way to promote proper food handling and accountability. Many vendors report that they actually appreciate the standards because they serve to combat the "roach coach" stereotype. Brian Bouger, a food truck vendor in Durham, is one of these operators. He likes that he can confidently tell patrons that his truck is held to the same health standards as restaurants. 19 Role of Commissaries One of the most promising and more diversified aspects of mobile food vending is the commissary, a food truck "home base" of sorts. Commissaries are fixed location kitchens where food must be prepped before being loaded onto the truck for cooking and selling. They often operate as storage for various ingredients as well. 18 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Stakeholder Concerns All stakeholders can benefit from the appropriate utilization of commissaries. If more than one truck may operate out of a commissary, city employees, whether collecting licensing and permit documents and fees, or performing routine inspections for maintaining sanitation and public health standards, have fewer places to visit and can more easily streamline their permit review and inspection process. Food truck owners can reap the benefits of the economies of scale that commissaries provide. Compli- ance with many of the regulatory burdens food trucks face are less expensive when shared by several owners. Mobile vendors can also be assured that they are doing their due diligence with regards to regulations, which if not properly followed could mean large fines and even the possibility of being shut down. Commissaries provide new vendors with a central facility to get all the information they need to operate. This can save a significant amount of time and cost, especially when city business codes are dif- ficult to track down. They may also benefit by not having to shoulder the full responsibility for compli- ance; if they sign a contract with a commissary, it may become the commissary operator's responsibility to see that compliance is achieved. Commissaries provide brick and mortar restaurant owners with the assurance that food trucks are being held to the same standards and inspections as they are. Lastly, the general public can rest easy knowing that commissaries cut down on the number of unregulated mobile vendors and that health concerns are addressed in a thorough and efficient manner (when considering taxpayer monies spent on health departments). Regulatory Trends All of the cities included in this guide have a commissary requirement. Boston requires proof that food trucks are serviced by a mobile food vending commissary and that mobile venders keep accurate logs indicating that the food truck is serviced at least twice daily by a mobile food commissary for all food, water and supplies, and for all cleaning and servicing operations. In Washington, D.C., all vendors must maintain access to an approved depot location. A copy of the license for the service support facil- ity and/or a recent inspection report is required to be presented. In St. Louis and Denver, trucks must operate from a commissary and report there once a day to clean all supplies and servicing operations. Recommendations Mobile vendors should embrace the use of commissaries. It is recommended that cities adopt an approach similar to the ones employed in Austin and Durham, where all food trucks must have a con- tract with a commissary, but more than one food truck may be associated with a single commissary.20 Food trucks may also negotiate with restaurants to utilize (and pay) them as places to dispose of waste. These contracts foster a sense of community and keep conflicts to a minimum. In Durham, multiple mobile vendors are also able to use a single commissary. This approach best satisfies the concerns of all stakeholders. The regulation is not terribly onerous to the food truck operators, but still ensures food safety, which the public and the city may be concerned about. It helps give the impression that food trucks are being held to the same standards, which restau- rants appreciate, and makes it easier for local food safety enforcement officials to do their job. 19 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Public Safety Public safety is a key reason why many cities began regulating food trucks. Issues around public safety include private property, vending near schools, and pedestrian safety. Private Property Private property options for mobile vendors create opportunities for businesses to extend their market reach, particularly for denser cities or those with very little public space (consider the Atlanta case discussed under public space). The cities included here have adopted a variety of regulatory models to address private space. In some cases, they practice a more informal approach, allowing food truck oper- ators to gain a private space permit and conduct business without further regulatory strings attached. Others restrict mobile vending operations solely to private property. Equally important are existing zoning codes applied to private property that may or may not be zoned for vending. Stakeholder Concems Standard public safety practices used in other city regulatory affairs (within the realm of private prop- erty) ought to lead the dialogue and development of relevant rules that empower proprietors to observe 21 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life and enforce appropriate safety measures on their property, and communicate those measures with mobile vendors. For cities, responsibility of property maintenance is lessened and is likely to fall on the shoulders of vendors and property owners, who will determine ways to address sanitation, safety, and property upkeep. Mobile vendors generally appreciate the flexibility that private space has to offer, e.g. fewer time restrictions and less government involvement in their daily operations. Regulatory Trends When examined through the lens of public safety, the cities selected have adopted a variety of regula- tory models to deal with private property. Seven cities had roles regarding private property. Two cities lacked specifics on the issue, perhaps because they do not allow vendors to operate in private space in general. Cities that allow the use of private property for mobile vending have designated specific private zones where food trucks can operate to ensure public safety. Recommendations The adoption of more lenient regulatory language is generally the preferred approach for food trucks on private property, with the exception of denser regions. Owners of private property have the power to control what takes place on their land, including the ability to exclude whomever they choose. The issue at stake is not how to best balance the needs of various parties that have access to the land, as it is with public space. Instead, the emphasis shifts to reducing any negative externalities that might spillover onto adjacent or neighboring properties, particularly if an owner grants permission to mul- tiple vendors. Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life As such, a regulatory framework that is generally less restrictive than for public property is appropriate as long as the owners grant permission for their land to be used by mobile vendors. However, since there is a greater danger of negative externalities when private property is located in denser areas, a modestly more regulated structure may be called for within these regions. In Indianapolis, few regulations limit mobile vending business on private property. While the time - frame for vending on public space is limited to between loam and 6pm, a business can get a permit for operating on private property and simply park at parking meters for the same rate as personal vehicles." The majority of Portland's mobile vending occurs on private property, particularly surface parking lots." A zoning permit may be required for development associated with a mobile vending cart, such as changes to an existing parking area, landscaping, and drive - through facilities. Vending carts over 16 feet in length, with or without wheels, are considered Heavy Trucks by the zoning code, and are not allowed in certain zones .23 Vending Near Schools Mobile vendors encounter several public safety issues when deciding to operate near schools. Issues of concern include traffic- related safety, increased chances of interaction with predators that may be waiting for children to step off public property, and whether the food offered by mobile vendors meets school food safety standards.' Stakeholders Mobile vendors are beginning to recognize the potential opportunity to expand the food options avail- able to local secondary schools and simultaneously capture a new, steady stream of customers, but they may be met with opposition from school administrators and parents who see their presence as a threat to safety and may view their menu options as potentially unhealthy. Cities looking to regulate vending near schools must determine the best precautionary measures in terms of distance requirements that mobile vendors must abide by. Regulatory Trends Five of the cities included in the guide have regulations around vending near schools. The regulations emphasized specific distances from schools that are intended to keep students from venturing off cam- pus to patronize mobile vendors, and maintain safety standards for neighboring schools and commu- nities. All other cities have no specific rules around this, perhaps indicating that this is not an issue in their jurisdictions. Recommendations Restrictions on operating during school hours are recommended, and mobile vendors should be required to maintain farther proximity from schools compared to restaurants, keeping density in mind. The time restriction is mostly a health - related issue, while the proximity suggestion is largely motivated by safety concerns. The framing of regulations surrounding mobile vendors and schools should be focused on protecting children during school operating hours. This approach keeps vendors from sell- ing to students without adult supervision, but still allows them to benefit from afterschool activities 23 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life such as games, competitions, and concerts, where adults are more likely to influence food consumption decisions. However, proximity requirements should not handicap vendors in denser areas from selling in viable spaces that happen to be closer to schools. In Indianapolis, vendors are prohibited from operating within a distance of 1,000 feet (roughly 0.2 miles) of any part of a public or private grade or junior high school grounds while school is in session. In Durham, a special temporary permit can be obtained for mobile vendors to operate at non -profit or civic events held on public property such as a school. School districts that want to expand their food options, but wish to do so with minimal budgetary impact should work with city officials to create school vending permits for a limited number of vendors. Designated curb -side parking (which is not adjacent to a main road) could reduce many public safety concerns, particularly if students are generally allowed to roam the school parking lot where the trucks would operate. As long as they continue to comply with the city's food safety standards, this could be a viable option for city and school officials. Pedestrian Safety Mobile vendors move from location to location, coming in close contact with pedestrians at intersec- tions and street corners every day. While some city ordinances have distance- from - pedestrian /sidewalk requirements (e.g. Durham has a 4 -foot role), the majority of the cities examined here have no such language in their regulations. Pedestrian safety may be part of a broader regulatory approach in many cities, but that focus often lacks emphasis or enforcement for mobile vendors (although it may be taken up in other sections of city ordinances). Pedestrian and intersection safety measures be included in food truck regulations, as they affect all potential food truck patrons. 24 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Additional Recommendations In addition to the recommendations included under each policy area, there are other, more general recommendations to help cities adopt new vending policies, amend existing policies, build stakeholder collaboration, and harness the potential for economic growth through the mobile food industry. Five of these recommendations are discussed in detail below: 1. Hold Town Hall Forums and Private Meetings with Core Stakeholders. Durham decided to embrace a very inclusive approach to their ordinance restructuring. The city brain- stormed initial ideas internally then presented the draft suggestions to the public for feedback. They also had private meetings with individual stakeholders to allow them to speak freely without fear of backlash. This tactic was particularly useful for restaurants in a food truck friendly city like Durham. Any fears they may have been afraid to share in Town Hall meetings could still be articulated to decision - makers. The weight of opinion worked against restaurants in this context, but they were still brought to the table. 2. Encourage Dialogue and the Building of Relationships Among Competing Stakeholders. Cities should look for ways to encourage relationships between the various stakeholders. At the heart of proximity n ales are concerns that restaurants (and other established businesses) have about unfair competition. They pay expensive monthly rents and property taxes, but they are also engaged with the community. Because they are stationary, most restaurants see themselves as part of the community fab- ric. They create employment opportunities and care about neighborhood safety and aesthetics. Some view mobile vendors as profit- driven, fly -by -night operators with few or no ties to the community. Conversely, mobile vendors often feel that restaurateurs are fearful of innovation in food culture. Collaboration between these stakeholders is something to strive toward, and cities can play an impor- tant role in spearheading dialogue between these groups. Conferences, forums, or meetings could be called with stakeholders from both sides invited to the table in a spirit of cooperation, with the intent of encouraging them to see each other as collaborators rather than competitors more often than they currently do. It could also encourage voluntary compromise help craft solutions that balance the needs and concerns of both parties. Cincinnati has achieved this, to some degree. Food Truck Alliance Presi- dent Matt Kornmeyer explained that food trucks in the city, voluntarily maintain a 100 -foot distance from neighboring restaurants as a sign of respect to brick and mortars, and as a preparatory measure. " 3. Implement Pilot Programs to Determine What Regulations to Adopt. Pilot programs are flexible, encourage innovation, and can help uncover and address issues unique to particular communities. They are usually implemented on a small scale, so they do not create a sudden, large burden on an already existing network, and they provide insight that can inform the decision - making process before regulations are made into law. Their flexibility and emphasis on experimentation make them an especially useful tool for new industries. Not programs are being used in a variety of cities, including Oakland, and are recommended for cities with a relatively new food truck scene or a rapidly expanding one. 25 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life In 2001, the Oakland City Council created the Pushcart and Vehicular Food Vending Pilot Programs.' The pilot program was created to promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and gen- eral welfare by requiring that new and existing pushcart food vendors provide residents and customers with a minimum level of cleanliness, quality and safety. T7 This program issued 60 permits and required a 10 -step validation process, including a complete application, proof of Business Tax Certificate, and a photocopy of a valid driver's license .2' The program restricted the use of these permits to centralized districts because of the added desire to infuse economic development into the city. 29 This pilot program is still active. 4. Use Targeted Practices as a Way to Address Underserved Areas of the City. The issue of food accessibility has been linked to poverty, decreased public health, and quality of life " Moreover, in recent years, food deserts have become an issue of public concern. Although the cities included here are not directly using mobile vending to combat food deserts, some are employing a tar- geted strategy to get food trucks into various areas of their cities, outside of the core downtown districts, some of which are underserved by brick and mortar restaurants. Initially, the 2012 Cincinnati City Council approved an ordinance that declared a mobile vendor could not sell food on the curbside or right -of -way. Now, seven zones exist in strategic places around the city, up from four in 2011 per the recommendation of the Department of Community Development." 26 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Denver has actively considered several issues that might impact or encourage economic development. These include whether food truck clustering could be used to combat food deserts, the ability of food trucks to activate underutilized space (like surface parking lots), and food trucks as restaurant incuba- tors in underserved areas. 32 5. Identify Private Vacant Lots and Create Partnerships for Mobile Vendors to Gather and Vend in the Same Location. The use of private space has been used to create several food truck centers that increase economic activ- ity in various West Coast cities. For example, Portland is known as the food truck capital of the world. This type of clustering can create hot spots for loyal customers, as well as an opportunity for mobile vendors to gain new clients. For city government, it can create an ease of regulation and enforcement by focusing attention and resources on specific parts of the city. While Portland has a number of the more traditional mobile food trucks around the city, the majority of their mobile vending occurs on private property, particularly surface parking lots and vacant lots." Portland uses food truck centers to create economic vibrancy within various parts of the city. In 2009, the city proposed the use of vacant lots as pods, or areas for food trucks to cluster. The idea was to use vacant lots as catalysts for economic development, deterring blight and encouraging vibrancy in the process. It is important to note that while many of the food trucks (what they refer to as food carts ) are mobile, the city has several stationary mobile units. These units are moveable, but primarily remain on private property.34 Many of the pods are hosts to more permanent vending units, particularly in downtown. They are still classified as mobile though because as long as the food carts are on wheels, they are considered vehicles in the eyes of the law, and are therefore exempt from the building code.35 Atlanta often uses private surface parking lots to encourage mobile selling. Atlanta has also had a very active and successful food truck association, the Atlanta Street Food Coalition, which does an admi- rable job mobilizing vendors and keeping public and private partners informed. 27 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Conclusion Mobile vending is not just a passing fad. However, it is important to recognize that there is no one size fits all prescription for how best to incorporate food trucks into the fabric of a community. Many char- acteristics contribute to the complexity and vibrancy of a city, including political climate, state laws, demographics, and the existing restaurant industry. With this in mind, the recommendations included here are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances, but logical enough to provide useful guidance. They can serve as a road map that will help cities establish a regulatory framework best suited to their unique circumstances and that takes into account the whole spectrum of stakeholder needs and concerns. is Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life About this Publication Research for this guide and the original draft of the document were completed by graduate students at the George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administra- tion. Contributors include Anju Chopra, Malia Dalesandry, Garrett Jackson, Ana Jara, and Stephen Tu. These students worked in partnership with J. Katie McConnell, Brett Common, and Christiana McFarland at the National League of Cities to conduct an analysis of food truck regulations in cities across the country. The final report was edited by Christiana McFarland and Emily Pickren at NEC. The National League of Cities is the nation's oldest and largest organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. NEC is a resource and advo- cate for more than 1,600 member cities and the 49 state municipal leagues, representing 19,000 cities and towns and more than 218 million Americans. NEC provides research and analysis on key topics and trends important to cities, creative solutions to improve the quality of life in communities, inspiration and ideas for local officials to use in tackling tough issues and opportunities for city leaders to connect with peers, share experiences and learn about innovative approaches in cities. Acknowledgements Special thanks to the George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration faculty and staff, particularly Elizabeth Rigby and Patrick Besha. Special thanks also go to all the interviewees - city staff, food trucks owners, and city officials for their candid and informative perspectives regarding the regulatory concerns and opportunities for their cities. 31 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life Appendix Selection of Cities This report analyzes mobile vending regulations across a range of cities. First, cities with existing food truck industries (51 in total) were identified, based on information from the Washington, DC Depart- ment of Transportation (DDOT). Each city's context and food truck policy /regulatory environment was reviewed, and data was gathered on each city's region, population density, level of the local food truck industry, and availability of mobile vending regulations. The 51 cities were stratified into three groups based on population density Specifically, we developed a three- tiered density structure in which cities were classified as: • Low density (cities as those with a density range of 3,500 persons per square mile (ppsm) and below) • Moderate density, (cities with 3,501 -7000 ppsm) • High population densities (cities with 7,001 ppsm and above) Ultimately, the sample of cities drawn ranges in population size from 279,641 (Durham) to 827,609 (Indianapolis), in density from 936 ppsm (Durham) to 12,793 ppsm (Boston). Very large cities like New York City (27,000 ppsm) and San Francisco (17,000 ppsm) were not included on the basis that conclusions drawn from analyzing their regulations would not be generalizable to most other cities. Between three and five cities from each population density tier were selected for a total of 13 cities. The selection process focused on cities with a food truck presence, then cities were divided into geographic regions, and several cities were chosen from those regions. Context and background were also taken into account. That is, cities with mobile vending regulations and histories that insufficiently high- lighted particularly noteworthy regulatory conflicts or solutions were ruled out in favor of those that lent themselves better to examination of recurring themes and common pitfalls. With such an approach, it is possible that a city regulation that was uniquely innovative or informa- tive in was in some way was overlooked. The low, medium and high density methodological structure, paired with the regional breakdown, is an attempt to minimize this risk. 33 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life References 1 Intuit Network (December 2012). Food Trucks Motor Into the Mainstream. Retrieved from http : / /mtwork.intuf.com /wpionlent /uplands/ 2012 /12 /Intuit - Food- Traks -Repoa.pdf 2 Intuit Network (December 2012). Food Trucks Motor Into the Mainstream. Retrieved from http : / /mtwork.intuf.com /wpionlent /uplands/ 2012 /12 /Intuit - Food- Trmks -Repoa.pdf 3 Norman, Frommer, Gall & Knepper. (July 2011). Sheep of Discus: How Fes Can Creole Economic Opportunity By Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending, Institute for Justice. Retrievedfrom http: //w .il.org/ images /pdf_ folder /ecenomic_ILerty/ad vending /streetsofdreams _ webtnal.pdf 4 Author Unknown (June 23, 2011). Envirodmerdul and Consumer Heelth Unit, Austin -Tmvk County Health and Human Services Department: Application for Mobile Food Vendor Permit. Retrieved from http: / /www. ausanieces.gov/ sites / default / files / files / Health /eh_mobilefoodvendor _ enghsh 6_23_1 l.pdf 5 City of Cincinnati Deportment of Health Mobile Food Service licensing Information. Retrieved from hHp.//mw.CinCinnurwh.gov/quinlmn/linkmriid/9[B7203 C-BD53-17 9A A671453AD2114CIDIC/showmeto/o/ 6 Id ttp://books.google.com /books? hl—en &It— &[it— 4XxbYM8 U Mtwe &o[=f nd8pg— PA78&dq—defni aon+of+ public +goods&ots= 6MPCjsK4D&sig-42MHeR JOG IGv5TTUkw6IH6NOM#v= onepage& q—deflnitlon %20of %20publlc%20goods &f =false 7 Marcus, Nancy (March 29, 2013). Telephone Interview with Nancy Marcus, Office of the City Administrators, Special Business Permits. 8 Based on interviews with Grace Smith, and Brian BottgeL Also the presedutwn Grace sent me on food truck regulations in Durham 9 Trihhg lay (April 2013). Telephone Interview with Joy Tnhby, Chief of Stuff for Councilmember Kwanza Hall (Atlanta). 10 Section 110190 of Code & Interview wilh Jonathan T. Harris 11 Fear, Ion (January 5, 2012). A Real Cluster Truck: As Food Trucks Pmlderah, Tarrson Builds Between Mobile Vendors Imdwmble Euteries. Retrieved from http://www.rMertronttlmes.com/201201 05/restaurants/st louts - food truck - regulations - conflicts with local restaurant owners/ 12 Author Unknown (Dote Unknown). Proposed Ordiounco to Accord the City Code Regarding Regulation of Street Vending and Special-Event Permits: Setion 54 -91(f) of the Durham Code of Oubounca. Retrieved from hHp. / /durhumnc.govlich /ch/ apd/ DKumnis/C unenl% 2OTopo/ dmk% 2Wrm[% 20vending %2ODrdinance%2006288t12pdf 13 Author Unknown (Dote Unknown). Proposed Ordiounco to Accord the City Code Regarding Regulation of Street Vending and Special-Event Permits: Section 54 -91(f) of the Durham Code of Oubounca. Retrieved from http: / /durhumnc.govlich /ch/ apd/ DKumnis/C unenl% 2OTopo/ dmk% 2Wrm[% 20vending %2ODrdinance%2006288t12pdf 14 Cukine, Mobile O ebm ay 7, 2013). Los Vegas Food Tracks Get Three Downtown Spaces. Retrieved from Mlp://mohiletuisine.cam/ off- diewire /losvegusfoadimcksA wntown- porkngspacos 15 Trihhg Jay April 2013). Telephone Interview with Joy Tabby, Chief of Sluff forCouncilmemher Kwanza Hall (Allude). 16 Author Unknown (July 30, 1986). Rules of Department of Human Resources: Public Health, Chapter 290 5 -14, Food Service. Retrieved from hHp: // health .siale.go.us /pdfs /envimmmntal /Food /Rules/FoDdSeriKeRules.pdf 17 Author Unknown (January 10, 2008). Envirodmedel and Consumer Healdi Unit, Austen -Travis County Health and Human Services Department: Starting a Food Business. Retrieved from hHp:// wm. idyofamhn .org/shdp /dDwnloods /slmlUbm.pdf 18 Greg (October 18, 2010). Atlanta Sheet Food Coalition: Frequently Asked Ouelians. Retrieved from http:// www .odaninsimeffoDd.com /hequendMked consul 19 Bagger, Brian (March 17, 2013). Telephone Interview with Brian goal Owner of Only Burger Food Truck in Durham. 20 Newman, More G. C? 012). Food Track Safety: What is o Commit Retrieved from http: / /www.faadtmcksufety4l l.com /p /whulistommismry.himl 21 Norman, Frommer, Gall & Knepper. (2011). Sheep of Dreads: How Fes Can Creole Economic Opportunity By Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending, Institute for Justice. http: / /www.il.org/ images /pdf_ folder /economic_ liberty/atI_ vending /streetsofdreams _ webl nal.pdf. 22 Bill Rogers, K. and Roy, K. 2010 23 City of Portland, Burgm of Devebpment Services. (December 2010). Vending Carlson Pnmte Property. http: / /www.portlondanline. cam /hdslindex.dm ?u= 154593 &=45053 35 Food on Wheels: Best Practices for Integrating Food Trucks into City Life 24 The American Heart Association. Oune 2012). Mobile Vending Neu Schools Policy Stutement. Retrieved from hHp. / /mw.hma.oFVdc/ groups /hena- public / dam/ Oadv/ daumenis/downlooduhle /ucm_446658.pdf 25 Kornmeyer, Matt (March 2013). Telephone Interview with Mott Kornmeyer, author of Scratch Food Track in Indemmuln. 26 Author Unknown (January 20, 2012). City of Oakland: City Administration: Special Business Permits and Activities. Retrieved tram hnp:/ /www2.wklondnet.com /Govemment /o/ GtyAdministratwn /d/S real ge nor us/ 21 Cityof Ooklond2001 .hnp. / /bhrary.municode.com /HFMV 16308/ level2/ fIT5BUFAPERE _CH5.49PUFOVEPIPR.himl 28 Had City of Oakland. 2001 http: //Jibrary.municode.com/HTML/ 16308/ level2/ TIT5BUFAPERE _CH5.49PUFOVEPIPR.html 29 Marcus, Nanq (March 29, 2013). [mail correspondence word Nanq Marcus, Office of the City Administrators, Special Business Permits. 30 hup: // science. hmsiuffworks. com /envimnmenNl /gmen5 ienc000ddaeal.htm 31 Gry of Cincinnati Mobile Food Vending Pilot Program Report Fountain Square ]ones. 2011. Retrieved from hnp:// Cd "gov.cincinnurwh.gov/Weblop /ws /council /pubIK /child/ Bbh /33865.pd4os ionid= E4DD94DB39C912 CCDB42511E2A81DBlHari 32 City of Denver. 2012. hnp:// www .lwedownlowndenvercom/LDDB6g/ ?p =2422 33 IInd Rogers, K. and Roy, K. 2010 34 Rican, Rachel. 2010. hnp:// www. poMandmonthfymog .com /eulanddfink/ Too &curtiity /orricles /consyreeley0910 35 Rogers, Kelly and Kelley Roy (December 19, 2010). Portland Food Curls: Catering to the Pedestrian. Retrieved from hHp. / /mw. planning. org /mwurtes /onthemdor /food /pdf/[PDpoMandfoodiarls.pdf 36 NATIONAL LEAGUE of CITIES ©� r iPs CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org October 21, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Electronics Technician Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Electronics Technician. Kori Kaiser IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra A. Dickerson, Chair r IP7 Pit lu CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 3S6 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org October 20, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Landfill Operator Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Landfill Operator. Joel Fuhrmeister IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION r Lyra M. Dickerson, Chair IP8 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org October 20, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mass Transit Operator. Ramiro Ortiz IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra W. Dickerson, Chair IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DRAFT MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,2014--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Nicholas Kilburg, Matt Butler, Bram Elias MEMBERS ABSENT: Alexa Homewood STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Bond Drager, Emily Light SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Light said that Senior Center Television will be having an open house October 28 and will be showing a number of works by SCTV volunteers. Brau said Mediacom responded to the letter from the city requesting Mediacom provide some form of compensation for the disruption caused by their plan to move the library channel and go to digital transmission only for the digital tier. Mediacom declined citing a desire that all Mediacom communities be treated the same. The city will be contacting Mediacom to determine how they might collaborate with Mediacom to publicize where those who need a digital to analog converter can get them. A meeting was held with representatives of the access channels to discuss ways to inform the public of the library channel number change and how all the access channels could use the public outreach effort to also promote their channels. A list of ideas was developed. Coleman and City Communications Director Shannon McMahon will develop messaging language. PATV will produce a PSA. The library will be working on separate efforts to inform viewers of the channel number change. The city will develop a website to help consumers obtain and install converter boxes. Brau said the he recently received feedback from PATV for the local access survey and will be incorporating the changes. The survey will then be tested. It is expected the survey will be initiated next month. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bergus moved and Elias seconded a motion to approve the amended August 28, 2014 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES There was no consumer issues report. MEDIACOM REPORT There was no report. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL REPORTS Light said that Senior Center Television will be having an open house October 28 and will be showing a number of works by SCTV volunteers. SCTV volunteers will be meeting with City Channel 4 staff to discuss some of those projects. A SCTV volunteer is participating in the climate change march across the United States and will be making a video on the topic. A program consisting of a number of interviews called "Images of Aging" is now being played back. MEDIACOM INTERNET PROPOSAL Brau said Mediacom responded to the letter from the city requesting Mediacom provide some form of compensation for the disruption caused by their plan to move the library channel and go to digital transmission only for the digital tier. Mediacom declined citing a desire that all Mediacom communities be treated the same. The city will be contacting Mediacom to determine how they might collaborate with Mediacom to publicize where those who need a digital to analog converter can get them. A meeting was held with representatives of the access channels to discuss ways to inform the public of the library channel number change and how all the access channels could use the public outreach effort to also promote their channels. A list of ideas was developed. Coleman and City Communications Director Shannon McMahon will develop messaging language. PATV will produce a PSA. The library will be working on separate efforts to inform viewers of the channel number change. The city will develop a website to help consumers obtain and install converter boxes. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL SURVEY Brau said the he recently received feedback from PATV for the local access survey and will be incorporating the changes. The survey will then be tested. It is expected the survey will be initiated next month. ADJOURNMENT Butler moved and Elias seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1rG4- Midhael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused Elias Ber us Kilburg Butler Homewood 9/23/13 x X X X o/c 10/28/13 X X X X X 12/30/13 O/C X O/C X X 1/27/14 X X X X X 2/24/14 X X X 0 0 3/24/14 X X X X X 6/2/14 0 X X X X 6/23/14 0 X X X X 7/28/14 0 x x x 0/c 8/25/14 X X X X X 9/22/14 X X X X o/c (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused